Kloster
-
Posts
2,487 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Profiles
Events
Posts posted by Kloster
-
-
7 hours ago, Joerg said:
Does a broo larva count?
If you survive the birth, why not. I would say yes.
-
4 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:
in fact with 90% at base skill (without augment but maybe modified in a combat with the reduction of 100%+ rules if i can call it like that) :
you may have 140% but you will fail at 96+, you may have 140% but you will fumble at 00
so the success chance is only raised by 5 when the augment skill roll is succeed (critical, special or normal)
in the other hand, you really reduce your success chance when you failed your augment skill roll
so the average success is
(90+5) * 0.55 + (90-20) * 0.43 + (90-50) * 0.02 = 83.15 < your 90%
the only gain is the probability to have a critical success (20% of 140, 120, 110, there is no "cap" there)
You're right. My calculation is wrong here.
-
16 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:
No, I really can't. I just crunched the numbers and reported the result.
Here it is, if you want to have a look. Maybe I made a mistake.
I already had a look, and I didn't find any mistake, but I also redone my maths and also found nothing, hence my question.
16 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:I think it's probably the increased fumble chance. You could have rolled your 90 skill and only fumbled on a 00, but no you had to go and roll on a 70 skill first giving you a fumble on a 99 or 00. That must be it! 70 fumble is 99 or 00, 71 is 00, so that's why the break is there. It's the exact point where you're twice as likely to fumble on that first die roll.
Fairly possible.
-
7 minutes ago, soltakss said:
Yes, in my opinion.
Same for me.
-
On 9/21/2021 at 6:17 PM, PhilHibbs said:
The break-even point for a skill of 90 appears to be around 65. Above or equal to that, it's worth augmenting. Below that, it is not.
Can you please explain that. If your augmenting skill is 55%, you have 3% of having a bonus of 50%, 8% (11-3) of getting a bonus of 30%, 44% (55-11) of getting a bonus of 20%, 43% (45-2) of getting a malus of 20% and 2% of getting a malus of 50%, whatever the value of the augmented skill. So augmenting a 90% skill with a 55% skill, in 3% of the case, your augmented skill will be 140% (90+50), in 8%, it will have a value of 120% (90+30), in 44% of the case, the value will be 110%, in 43% of the case, it will be 70% and in 2% of the case, the value will be 40%, giving an average of ((3*140)+(8*120)+(44*110)+(43*70)+(2*40))/100=93.1, which is above 90.
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:
RQG occasionally leans that way as well, look at the weapon skills on the basic character sheet.
Some of those are individual weapons like broadsword, others are categories like 1H Axe.
In fact, not. For RQG, each weapon in the same group is a different skill, but you can use the higher at half your best. The character sheet has been done that way to save space (this was clarified by Jeff, iirc). In RQ3, each of the weapon in the same group share the same skill.
-
In RQ3, you had a skill for a group of weapons.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:
And don't forget the priority rules... Which I imagine would have had a significant impact, since your opponent was successfully parrying. Riposte for the win!!!
Yes, but this is a completely different can of worms.
12 hours ago, Susimetsa said:Historically, you actively defend with pretty much every sword type - only a fool would not do so. Longsword techniques have guards where combatants hold their swords in positions where they block most lines of attack and can quickly move to protect another when needed (when your opponent switches to another guard - changing their sword position and opening themselves a new set of attack lines - you change your guard to match to block as many of those new lines of attack as you can). Thus, you need feints to make your opponent move their sword away from the area you want to attack.
Completely true.
-
56 minutes ago, David Scott said:
Isn't this what you want your Humakti to do? If it's unbalancing you game bump the cost / cap the mps / max skill, or disallow the cult for players.
As I have replaced the whole RQG combat chapter by it's RQ3 equivalent (with a few adds from RQG), I don't have the problem: Sword trance affects only attack, you have only 1 parry (except if you split) and the opponent's skill is not reduced by your score over 100%. An Humakti is still a killing machine, but not an invulnerable one.
59 minutes ago, David Scott said:I have two Humakti in my campaign, both use Sword Trace (stacked with Bladesharp and usually a Death rune augment).
I have only one, and he is using the same tactics.
59 minutes ago, David Scott said:I can honestly say they have never had any issue with the confusion and inconsistency you are talking about.
I am not the one that spoke of inconsistencies (I have even written that Bladesharp is not inconsistent). I have just answered to your question about game effects.
1 hour ago, David Scott said:I am however interested in hearing about any issues your players are having with these spells.
Because of our house rule, I have no trouble. If we were not using them, the main trouble is that somebody casting Sword trance with only 10MP becomes almost impossible to hit.
50 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:There's no Humakti in my group, but if there were, I'd be inclined to turn it more into something like Arrow Trance, where your skill actually matters. One of the weird outcomes of Sword Trance is how it makes your access to Magic Points vastly more important than your actual Sword skill when you have prep time (just a few rounds will do). Who cares if your opponent has 200% in his Sword when you have 100%, if you have 20 more MPs to spend? Going by the rules, any Humakti duel is likely to be decided by who can scrounge up the most MPs beforehand to get the overwhelming Sword Trance. This is kinda unexciting.
(Yes, Dispel/Dismiss, but that just means you need even more MPs for your defensive boosting of your Sword Trance.)
Completely agree.
1 hour ago, David Scott said:All so far have been able to track the bonus on their attack and the -20 per parry, on the same weapon.
Why -20 per parry? Because of the skill above 100%?
-
35 minutes ago, David Scott said:
How? I can honestly say I've never been confused by those two spells.
Why is the rule inconsistent?
How does effect play?
Bladesharp is not inconsistent, but can be confusing as it affect only attacks. When attack and parry are 2 different skills, there is no ambiguity, but when the skill is the same, the spell affects some use of the skill but not others.
For sword trance, I fully agree with @Akhôrahil and this does affect the game because somebody affected by sword trance can not be hit anymore, in addition to what he told.
-
1 hour ago, Martin Dick said:
One of the things a combat system could model is the difference in skill level between a character's ability to hit with a weapon versus the character's ability to parry an attack with that weapon. That seems to reflect a real possibility in the world and RQ1/2/3 decided to implement that. Whether to implement it is really a game design decision, does it add something that is better than the additional complexity that it adds to the system. It's horses for courses, but my experience was that attack and parry were usually pretty close so not splitting it seems like a way of simplifying the system without losing very much at all. And for people who don't feel that, reverting to separate attack and parry skills seems very easy to me
Completely agree.
-
5 minutes ago, icebrand said:
What happens if you use your arm to parry then?
In fencing, you are not allowed to use your non weapon arm, so it is a fault that can make you disqualified (I never saw this rule applied because you use your 2nd arm in your back as a way to keep your equilibrium). If you are hit with the foil in your (weapon) arm, it is not a hit, but the fight stops. With sabre or epee, it is a hit, so you never try to parry with your arm.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, icebrand said:
We could also say every single sword technique is a different (but related) skill, you just train them all at once (different XP rolls)
Right.
-
1 hour ago, icebrand said:
I seriously doubt he would have hit air if you didn't actively defend?
In fencing, you always actively defend, but with foil, the valid hit area is quite small: Only the torso is valid, and quite a number of attacks are hitting a non valid area (arms or legs, you almost never hit the head, and never voluntarily). All non torso/abdomen hits are not counted. Other weapons have different rules.
-
1 hour ago, icebrand said:
That sounds completely bizarre to me? Maybe is a language barrier? Like, if he didn't manage to hit you, it means you parried. I seriously doubt he would have hit air if you didn't actively defend?
I agree that English is not my primary language (I am french), but it does not seems to me it is a language problem. In that case, BRP/RQ seems correct to me: A 'no hit' is either a missed attack or a successful parry (in fencing, there is no idea of HP: either you hit or not). In my championship affair, all my attacks were successfully parried, and I just didn't manage to parry all his attacks because he was better at parrying than myself, that's it (I am not complaining: he was better than I was and went to next step. I didn't). I am just explaining that, from my experience with sword fighting (fencing), you learn to attack and defend at the same time, but that does not mean you are proficient at the same level (=different experience rolls in BRP terms).
-
3 hours ago, jajagappa said:
There's always a 5% chance of success even if the modifier reduces you to 0%.
Only skills with base chance of 0% are truly at 0%.
I remember that with 0%, you can not succeed, but my memories about RQ2 are from 40 years away, so I can be wrong.
-
4 hours ago, icebrand said:
So, doesn't he guy had 120% and lowered your skill work then?
My experience is in judo so i know nothing about swords, but i literally never found anyone that was easy to throw but good at throwing.
No, I was by far better than him in attacking. He didn't manage to hit every time and I parried some of his attacks, but not all. He parried (in fencing, more properly deflected) all mine. And my experience with HtH combat is close to 0, so I can not comment on that point.
-
9 minutes ago, icebrand said:
more realistic anyway, who learns to attack and not defend?
This is Jeff's argument to go to 1 single skill. This is right, nobody learns to attack and not to parry (or to parry and not to attack), but the experience is a completely different matter. My personal experience as a fencer was that I was quite a good attacker (probably above 90%), but not a good defender (around 60%). I lost during a french national championship finals with ... 0 points because my opponent parried all my attacks, and I could parry only some of his.
14 minutes ago, icebrand said:Whats appealing to you about RQ3 system that made you go back to it?
The separate skills, the moves integrated with the SR, the number of actions per round, the special maneuvers and effects (disarm, knockback,...), the 10 SR round, ...
-
20 minutes ago, icebrand said:
As a GM, i don't consider the back side shielded, and do consider the front and shield side shielded.
The rule was :'+10% if attacking from rear or unshielded side', so rear is specifically covered. I find perfectly correct to count front as shielded (of course, if there is a shield), but I personally don't apply this modifier for a front attack.
23 minutes ago, icebrand said:And when my hypothetical players say "hey dude that rule sucks"
If you feel a rule to be bad, do as I do: Change it. I personally reverted to RQ3 combat.
-
30 minutes ago, Scout said:
But, if I have Characteristics that result in a -5% modifier, and Pick Pockets has a base of 5%, that's 0%. Or am I missing something?
You don't miss anything, your math are right and your skill is 0%.
-
18 hours ago, icebrand said:
And a sword being better at parrying than a shield (no "attacker on the other side" thing somehow is????
In fact, it is not difficult to parry with a sword ... if you don't attack with it. What is difficult is parrying with your attack weapon (or, if you want, attack with the weapon you just parried with). Having never fought with a sword in each hand, I can't say anything about real world 2 sword fighting.
-
54 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:
No. When you use a shield, you give less attention to those on the shield side, and focus more on those on the weapon side.
When you don't have a shield, you spread your focus/attention around more.
No. Even with a shield, you pay attention to everybody in range. What changes is the quantity and speed of movement you have to perform to stay protected.
21 minutes ago, icebrand said:Plus, the rule is quite clear it says "unshielded side". A fighter with a one/two 1h weapons or a 2h weapon doesn't have a shielded side, making all their sides unshielded.
What I understand with 'Unshielded side' is the right or left side where there is no shield. Of course, when you have no shield, both are unshielded, but front and back are not side, so are not unshielded side.
-
12 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:
RQ3 made "additional experience" standard, based upon "parents occupation" and a 1D6 (or was it 1D4) roll to determine age and corollary occupation increases -- one roll per skill per year).
In RQ3, age was 2D6+15, and each year of the roll was a skill increase: if you rolled 7, your age was 22 and a skill described as x3 received 7*3=21% to add to the base.
3 hours ago, NickMiddleton said:It’s a tad fiddly, and scattered through various chapters, but you can get a chunk of training to lift starting skills (and some initial magic): but it leaves you with significant debts to various guilds… …which gives a solid reason for characters to be taking risky but rewarding jobs to try to pay off those debts!
As far as I can recall, we always used the Appendix H rules and had starting characters who were early twenties, rather than kids fresh off the farm.Same for me.
-
55 minutes ago, icebrand said:
Which implies literally everyone gets the flanking bonus if you don't use a shield.
Everybody that is not just in front of the defender, yes.
56 minutes ago, icebrand said:Which is weird from an rpg but pretty realistic if you ask me, since supposedly shields are several times better than parrying with a weapon!
They are much easier to use, or at least to learn to use, hence their quite high base skill value. On the other hand, it is pretty difficult to parry with your attacking weapon, and this is one of the reason I don't like the single skill for attack and parry.
To augment or not to augment
in RuneQuest
Posted
Ok, after taking in account Windchild's remarks, here are the calculations for a 90% skill, possibly augmented by a 55%, 65% and 75% skill:
Without augment:
Critical 5%
Special (18-5)=13%
Success (90-18)=72%
Failure (10-1)=9%
Fumble 1%
With 55% skill augment:
Critical ((7*3)+(6*8)+(6*44)+(4*44)+(2*2))/100=5.13%
Special (((28-7)*3)+((24-6)*8)+((21-6)*44)+((14-3)*44)+(3*2))/100=13.57%
Success (((95-28)*3)+((95-24)*8+((95-21)*44)+((70-2)*44)+(2*2))/100=70.21%
Failure=(100-(1.49+70.21+13.57+5.13))=9.6%
Fumble ((1*3)+(1*8)+(1*44)+(2*44)+(3*2))/100=1.49%
With 65% skill augment:
Critical ((7*3)+(6*10)+(6*52)+(4*33)+(2*2))/100=5.29%
Special (((28-7)*3)+((24-6)*10)+((21-6)*52)+((14-3)*33)+(3*2))/100=13.92%
Success (((95-28)*3)+((95-24)*10+((95-21)*52)+((70-2)*33)+(2*2))/100=70.07%
Failure=(100-(1.37+70.07+13.92+5.29))=9.35%
Fumble ((1*3)+(1*10)+(1*52)+(2*33)+(3*2))/100=1.37%
With 75% skill augment:
Critical ((7*4)+(6*11)+(6*60)+(4*24)+(2*1))/100=5.54%
Special (((28-7)*4)+((24-6)*11)+((21-6)*60)+((14-3)*24)+(3*1))/100=14.49%
Success (((95-28)*4)+((95-24)*11+((95-21)*60)+((70-2)*24)+(2*1))/100=71.23%
Failure=(100-(1.26+71.23+14.49+5.54))=7.48%
Fumble ((1*4)+(1*11)+(1*60)+(2*24)+(3*1))/100=1.26%
This is now more in line with what you have experimentally got. And you are right, the breakpoint is caused by the fumble % going from 99-100% to 100%.